> The most important point is that third one, I think:
> "any application where reliability requirements do not warrant
> spending $1M to make it more reliable"
>
> Adopting ORAC and/or other HA technologies makes it necessary to spend
> a Big Pile Of Money, on hardware and the humans to administer it.
If I were CIO that did not follow the Postgres groups regularly, I would
take that to mean that Oracle is automatically more reliable than PG
because you can spend a BPOM to make it so.
Let's ask a different question. If you take BPOM / 2, and instead of
buying Oracle, hire consultants to work on a PG solution, could the PG
solution achieve the same reliability as Oracle? Would it take the same
amount of time? Or heck, spend the full BPOM on hardening PG against
failure - could PG achieve that reliability?
Or, by spending BPOM for Oracle strictly to get that reliability, are you
only buying "enterpriseyness" (i.e. someone to blame and the ability to
one-up a buddy at the golf course)?
Cheers,
-J